Representative Alan Grayson (D-FL) is pushing for a formal investigation into the activities of General Keith Alexander now that the former head of the NSA has started his own very expensive security consultancy. There is no evidence of any wrongdoing by Gen Alexander. Last week it was reported that Alexander, who retired from …

COMMENTS

House rules Send corrections

This topic is closed for new posts.

Thursday 26th June 2014 22:58 GMT Anonymous Coward

I would pay extra out of next year's tax refund....

To help pay for the prosecution of Alexander. I'd forego the refund entirely if they busted that weasel James Clapper too. I might demand a highly public perp-walk in shackles into a federal courthouse in return, though.

However, I suspect it won't go anywhere. Alexander knows that pulling a Snowden and giving away classified material is treasonous, but selling state secrets while skating through DC's revolving door? Well, that's just good business.

21 1
1. Friday 27th June 2014 01:32 GMT Tom 35
  
  Re: I would pay extra out of next year's tax refund....
  
  That's why they are so upset with Snowden. He keeps giving away perfectly good merchandise for free.
  
  20 2
Thursday 26th June 2014 23:00 GMT Matt Bryant

WTF?

So, Mr Grayson doesn't actually have any evidence to back up his theory? Does he face an election soon?

2 27
1. Thursday 26th June 2014 23:39 GMT Tom Maddox
  
  Re: WTF?
  
  His evidence--stay with me here--is that the former head of the NSA just started a very expensive security consultancy when he, Mr. Former NSA Head, has no other particularly valuable knowledge apart from--wait for it--the inner workings of the NSA's highly-classified operations. Some people, I'm not saying me personally, but some people might find this fact a little bit suspicious.
  
  Cue the usual ad hominem from Matt "I <3 Surveillance" Bryant in T minus . . .
  
  31 2
  1. Friday 27th June 2014 06:21 GMT Anonymous Blowhard
    
    Re: WTF?
    
    One law for Snowden eh? Sounds like this guy will be doing similar for cash, maybe less in the public interest though; no-one pays $1m a month to share the love...
    
    8 1
  2. Friday 27th June 2014 07:00 GMT ratfox
    
    Re: No particular knowledge
    
    Wow. I sure hope I can keep my current job, because apparently if I lose it, I'll be back to getting paid $10 an hour since I can't possibly know anything about anything that's not confidential information about my current company which I'm not allowed to reveal.
    
    It's hard on new CEOs poached from rival companies. They know nothing about their new jobs either.
    
    1 16
  3. Friday 27th June 2014 07:44 GMT Matt Bryant
    
    Re: Tom Bollox Re: WTF?
    
    "....Mr. Former NSA Head, has no other particularly valuable knowledge...." Really? Alexander was also the Chief of the Central Security Service (CHCSS) and Commander of the United States Cyber Command and previously served as Deputy Chief of Staff, G-2, U.S. Army from 2003 to 2005; studied military intelligence at West Point; and holds an MS in electronic warfare and another in business management, all of which indicates a lot of security knowledge from before his time with the NSA, and a generalised spread of security and not just NSA top secret security. Wouldn't it have been nice if you'd bothered to do some research before bleating so stupidly?
    
    0 20
    1. Friday 27th June 2014 10:20 GMT SundogUK
      
      Re: Tom Bollox WTF?
      
      Every single job was therefore: in government service, involved confidential information, and paid for by the taxpayer.
      
      8 1
      1. Friday 27th June 2014 12:30 GMT Matt Bryant
        
        Re: DumbdogUK Re: Tom Bollox WTF?
        
        "Every single job was therefore: in government service, involved confidential information, and paid for by the taxpayer." Going by the unquestioning sheeple posting here, Mr Grayson has hit on a vote-winning scam!
        
        Did you stop to think that 90% of security, even in the military, is already not top secret and already in practice with commercial and private organisations throughout the World? Do you want to pretend CERT is keeping all its security findings top secret? What Alexander can advise on, without in any way using NSA top secret material, is effective organisational structures and management of security. He can also advise on the qualifications and mindsets of the correct people to employ without going anywhere near a top secret. The latter is very important for screening staff so that companies don't end up employing someone like Snowjob, who lied his way into a contract job just to play Walter Mitty. He can further advise on which other public people companies should be talking to about security, again without using a single NSA secret. Try THINKING before bleating the next time.
        
        0 12
        
        Friday 27th June 2014 13:54 GMT Anonymous Coward
        
        Re: DumbdogUK Tom Bollox WTF?
        
        Love the ad hominem renaming and the stench of bias. Try Matthew 7:3-5...
        
        0 2
        
        Saturday 28th June 2014 11:12 GMT Anonymous Coward
        
        Re: DumbdogUK Tom Bollox WTF?
        
        >He can also advise on the qualifications and mindsets of the correct people to employ without going anywhere near a top secret
        
        ...except the culture he presided over led to Snowdon and Manning - easily the worst breaches of intelligence in US history.
        
        1 1
        
        Saturday 28th June 2014 11:28 GMT Matt Bryant
        
        Re: AC Re: DumbdogUK Tom Bollox WTF?
        
        ".......except the culture he presided over led to Snowdon and Manning...." How was Alexander responsible for the psychological problems of wannabe transexual Manning? If anything, it seems the failing was in the over-bearing application of politically correct thought that let an unbalanced individual like Manning seek employment with the military. And Snowjob was a contractor for a third-party, who deliberately hid his real and traitorous intentions. Both were so far down the chain as to be nothing to do with Alexander. I am amused at your desperation, though.
        
        0 7
    2. Friday 27th June 2014 15:02 GMT Roo
      
      Re: Tom Bollox WTF?
      
      "Wouldn't it have been nice if you'd bothered to do some research before bleating so stupidly?"
      
      Having looked at the fruits of your research the only (legally) saleable experience/knowledge that you've listed are the MS's. Did your research establish if an MS in EW and another in Business Management is worth $600K/month, I ask because I think it's extremely unlikely.
      
      4 0
    3. Tuesday 1st July 2014 15:12 GMT Tom Maddox
      
      Re: Tom Bollox WTF?
      
      Oh, Matt, thank you for being so very predictable. You've really made my day!
      
      0 1
      1. Tuesday 1st July 2014 15:18 GMT Matt Bryant
        
        Re: Tom Bollox WTF?
        
        "....thank you for being so very predictable...." The only predictable part was the avalanche of down votes with the molehill of actual counters. Haters gotta hate, I suppose.
        
        0 0
2. This post has been deleted by its author
Thursday 26th June 2014 23:09 GMT Anonymous Coward

Nothing to see here folks...

Move along.... Just revolving door politics. Hey, it works well for the elite and their banking friends, so why not copy the model here...

5 1
1. Friday 27th June 2014 00:22 GMT elDog
  
  Re: Nothing to see here folks...
  
  For the small fry - no great gain when selling your expertise to the bloodsucking MIC (actually it started out as the Military Industrial Political Complex, but some staffer said it wouldn't sit well with the "P" types.)
  
  For the larger fries - those with 4+ stars or name recog like Chen/Rums, the ability to leverage their accidental positions of power - this is immense. Anyone seen as close to a focus of power/corruption is far more valuable than a good general/admiral.
  
  1 1
Friday 27th June 2014 00:01 GMT Sanctimonious Prick

And They Said...

It wouldn't happen.

Pfft!

4 1
Friday 27th June 2014 03:14 GMT Anonymous Coward

Military Industrial Congressional Complex

The words were Ike's, but they got redacted from the speech (his farewell) at the last minute because of concern the negative connotation would stick to Republican as well as Democratic members. Ike was still stinging from Nixon's defeat by Kennedy, a defeat that in part was attributed to the Democrats' drumbeat over a "missile gap" with the Soviets. The speech is full of sharp criticism, and suprisingly effective rhetoric:

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."

Audio: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AEisenhower_farewell_address.ogg

Of course Ike was right. In fact I think the post Cold War invasion and failed occupation of Iraq probably represents the ultimate outworking of the forces he warned about.

As for the case of Gen. Alexander, it's really not possible to say what exactly he brings to the table. If the Snowden case proves anything, it is that the NSA isn't very good at keeping track of lost secrets any more than the DoD was at keeping track of pallets full of US currency lost in Iraq. When you consider the massive amounts of undeniable (and yet incredibly, denied) economic intel on companies across the globe gathered by the NSA under his leadership, it isn't hard to imagine what most of Alexander's new private "customers" are interested in receiving from him.

9 1
1. Friday 27th June 2014 07:53 GMT Matt Bryant
  
  Re: AC Re: Military Industrial Congressional Complex
  
  "...and failed occupation of Iraq...." The Allies removed a dictatorial tyrant from power, talked the three main sectarian groups into democratic elections, and even convinced the local Sunnis to reject Al Quaeda. The subsequent failure has all been the fault of the Iraqis, in particular Nour Maliki. Whilst you could argue that America was naive to think the Iraqis were ready for true democracy, that unreadiness is a failing of the Iraqis' backward and tribal society and existed long before the invasion of Iraq.
  
  0 22
  1. Friday 27th June 2014 09:31 GMT Apdsmith
    
    Re: AC Military Industrial Congressional Complex
    
    Hi Matt,
    
    I don't think anybody is seriously arguing that Saddam Hussein was a good, kind leader, but the fact - widely acknowledged - remains that the allies invaded Iraq with inadequate planning performed on what to do once they'd won.
    
    Al Qaeda wasn't even a factor in Iraq until our blundering let them in. I'm not sure that does (or should) count as much of a plus point for the allies. The tribal fault lines now exposed we certainly knew about because we were trying to exploit them in 1991, but, because we didn't manage the handover to Iraqi control very well, we let the majority elect a president who felt free to ignore the minority (though I can understand that some in the administration at the time would feel nothing wrong with that).
    
    That's why America (and her allies) are responsible, to an extent, for the current failures in Iraq, because if they'd planned better, it wouldn't be in quite the same mess that it's in now - this is leaving aside any "WMD" arguments - this is purely about, however, whyever, you decided to go in, doing a good job of it. We didn't.
    
    Regards,
    
    Adam
    
    11 1
    1. Friday 27th June 2014 10:15 GMT Matt Bryant
      
      Re: Apdsmith Re: AC Military Industrial Congressional Complex
      
      ".....because we didn't manage the handover to Iraqi control very well, we let the majority elect a president who felt free to ignore the minority ....." It's amazing the lengths some people will go to in trying to blame everything on 'The Man' and excusing the Iraqis! What exactly do you suggest the Allies could have done differently? The ONLY option acceptable to the Allies was an attempt at full democracy (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3755850.stm), anything less would have been immediately seized on by the same bleating sheeple as just 'America trying to impose their will on Iraq'. And the Allies did not just cut and run at the first opportunity, they spent years trying to build up democratic institutions and stable government agencies in Iraq across sectarian lines, yet it took Maliki less than a year after we left to irretrievably break it. The US-led Allies oversaw three rounds of democratic elections in Iraq, only to see the Iraqis fail to do anything other than pursue tribal and sectarian agendas. We gave them their chance, they failed to make good use of it.
      
      "....Al Qaeda wasn't even a factor in Iraq until our blundering let them in...." Apart from the fact many expected AQ to make an attempt to gain ground in the post-war confusion, they were completely defeated in Iraq, especially by the US-led Anbar Awakening. You may want to baaaah-lieve otherwise, but the subsequent rise of groups like ISIS in Western Iraq is completely the fault of Maliki and his policies. The best we can hope for is that more moderate Sunnis will in turn kick ISIS out in an Anbar Awakening 2.0. But that will largely depend on how much influence the US can bring to bear on the rich Saudis that backed off funding Sunni groups the last time, only to see the Shia renege on their agreements and start oppressing the Iraqi Sunnis. This time round I suspect the Saudi money will not stop flowing until the Sunnis have an agreement on their own lands, either as part of a federal Iraq similar to the Kurdish region, or as a separate country. Either way, the simple fact is Maliki will have to go, despite his democratic authority, which means Obambi or his successor is going to have to ride out a lot more of the sheeple blindly bleating about 'undemocratic America installing a puppet' and the like. Why do you think the US is being so quiet about the behind-the-scenes support they are giving the new Egyptian strongman, General Sisi?
      
      Probably the only area we could agree on is that the Coalition Allies should not send troops to help Maliki, and no aid whatsoever unless he steps down and hands control to a government of national unity. Even then, apart from drones and precision bombing support, I'd only really be happy with Allied boots on the ground on very specific special forces operations against ISIS or AQ leaders (the latter not being much of a threat seeing as ISIS has rejected AQ control). Maliki is desperately trying to buy arms abroad, but the Iraqi Army has already failed with copious amounts of weapons and when they outnumbered Sunni militants 10:1. His having a dozen clapped-out Sukhoi Su27P (interceptors, not the multiple-role SKM version) is not going to help him unless he really thinks they can protect him from USN aircraft in an US-led intervention, which hints that Maliki does not plan on going quietly. Either way, to blame it all on the Allies is just blinkered.
      
      0 11
      1. Friday 27th June 2014 13:26 GMT Apdsmith
        
        Re: Apdsmith AC Military Industrial Congressional Complex
        
        Wow, I see reading isn't your strong suit.
        
        If you read the comment again, this time reading instead of reaching for the first handy sheep simile at every opportunity, you'll see that I've said that we bear _some_ responsibility but at no point said we bear _all_ responsibility. Because that would be stupid. Or perhaps you have difficulties with the difference between "some" and "all"?
        
        Not nice when people assume stuff about you without checking, is it? Point made, I'll return to my usual level of discourse.
        
        I realise that this probably isn't going to be a popular opinion, but, having committed to invading a country on what turns out to have been a pretext, I'd really the US (and her allies) went about it properly. Any amateur can invade, wreck the joint and leave a mess for generation afterwards (us Brits and Pakistan, virtually anybody and Afghanistan) but, having the will to invade and the will to manage your colony (let's be honest, after blowing up or sacking _the entire army_, dismantling the existing civil service and having to put troops into the cities to deal with the terrorists it's difficult to call it anything else) are two very different things. The domestic will in the US was never there because, it now appears, either the government of the day didn't tell or (and this is an actual possibilty I still find it difficult to credit) didn't realise they were going to be stuck there for a generation or two. It's not surprising it turned into a mess, but even after invasion, with the Iraqi government having very little legitimacy in anybody's eyes (how much time and how many bodies did it take to get rid of Blackwater? And that's a bunch of heavily-armed mercenaries going around and killing random citizens, if you can't sort _that_ out what hope is there for you?) it's not surprising everybody fell back on the "traditional" government, the pre-existing tribal system, which only made things worse long-term.
        
        As to how things are now, I can't see any circumstances under which Nouri Al-Maliki gets to stay. He's clearly not representing the whole of Iraq and the fraction of it that he has chosen to represent, he cannot protect. I don't think Al-Maliki or the Iraqis are blameless in this, but I think it was stupid to expect anything else. Just backing Al-Maliki with troops and guns is pointless, I agree with you there - we've either got to accept the break-up of Iraq as a state or find a way to get the Iraqi government to realise that they have to look after the people they have, not the people they want to have. Doing that in the middle of a shooting war is going to be a hell of a job, though.
        
        3 1
        
        Friday 27th June 2014 17:28 GMT Matt Bryant
        
        Re: Apdsmith AC Military Industrial Congressional Complex
        
        "....we bear _some_ responsibility but at no point said we bear _all_ responsibility....." Nice little backtrack, but it doesn't take into account we set up their democratic system for them, THEY failed to take advantage of it. The Allies bear absolutely zero responsibility for the failure of the Iraqis to see beyond their Medieval tribal mindset.
        
        "....on what turns out to have been a pretext...." What, Saddam wasn't killing his own people? He didn't run a repressive regime? Or are you now desperately diverging off into the WMD question because you just lost the last point so badly? Guess what - you lose again! Go read and learn something - http://www.iraqwatch.org/wmd/
        
        "...with the Iraqi government having very little legitimacy in anybody's eyes..." Apart from the three rounds of UN-monitored democratic elections in 2005, 2010 and 2014, you mean? You really haven't got a clue as to what you're bleating about. What failed in Iraq was not the democratic process the Allies put in place, nor the civil service they implemented across sectarian lines, it was how the Shia - especially Maliki - have used their democratic remit as a tool to oppress the Sunnis.
        
        "....Blackwater...." Wow, you're getting really desperate now, you're just rotating through all the sheeple bleating posts in turn. Apart from the fact the private security agencies (including Blackwater) were mostly there at the request of and providing security for the Iraq government, even the UN has admitted for years that the massive majority of killing in Iraq was Muslim-on-Muslim violence. The much bleated Blackwater Baghdad shootings killed 11 (some sources claim 17) Iraqis, on a day when sectarian violence is known to have killed at least 47 Iraqis, 19 of those in Baghdad (http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks-2007.htm). Whilst the Blackwater killings were a tragedy, in comparison to the numbers and frequency with which Iraqis were already killing each other it was a drop in an ocean. Blackwater could have gone on a similar rampage every single day of the ten year occupation period and not even come close to matching Saddam's pre-war atrocities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_graves_in_Iraq). I think you'd best try diverging to another sheeple bleating point, that one is truly done.
        
        "....it's not surprising everybody fell back on the "traditional" government, the pre-existing tribal system, which only made things worse long-term...." The 'traditional government'? Iraq had been run by British Mandate between the Wars, and before that - since the 16th Century - it was under Ottoman Turk rule, with a civil service run from Turkey. Even the so-called independent Iraq of the Thirties had to comply with British control. The rather shaky governments of the initial, pre-Ba'athist Republic (1958-1968), when the intellectuals struggled against the backward clerics, were actually a less sectarian period than today. The tribes haven't run Iraq since pre-Ottoman times. Add Middle Eastern history to your reading list, you have a lot of catching up to do.
        
        0 5
        
        Friday 27th June 2014 19:12 GMT arrbee
        
        Re: Apdsmith AC Military Industrial Congressional Complex
        
        I'd have said that the current situation in Iraq and Syria is another example of how the Saudis have been running rings round the US and its allies for the last 15 years.
        
        2 0
        
        Saturday 28th June 2014 09:39 GMT Roo
        
        Re: Apdsmith AC Military Industrial Congressional Complex
        
        "we set up their democratic system for them, THEY failed to take advantage of it"
        
        The whole system was set up get the results that the US et al could live with so strictly speaking it was not a democratic system at all, and given that it was set up by the invaders it was always going to be lacking the necessary credibility and legitimacy.
        
        "The much bleated Blackwater Baghdad shootings killed 11 (some sources claim 17) Iraqis, on a day when sectarian violence is known to have killed at least 47 Iraqis"
        
        Right, so on average Blackwater contractors were more lethal than Iraqis, how does validate your position ? Establishing and maintaining law and order is easier if you have the trust of the population that is being policed, trust will be hard to come by if the police force is a bunch of terrorists.
        
        "Apart from the fact the private security agencies (including Blackwater) were mostly there at the request of and providing security for the Iraq government,"
        
        Err, this would be the same Iraq government that was set up by the coalition, funded by the coalition and lacking any legitimacy with respect to the people it governs. There's another way of looking at it: Blackwater et al were there because the coalition + government were unable to find enough Iraqis they trusted not to kill the the government officials at the first opportunity. That doesn't speak volumes for the popularity of the democratically elected leadership IMO.
        
        I suspect that Matty B Rant, the PR hacks and decision makers have derived their entire mindset from the rather idealistic view of Roman Empire pedalled by classics nuts, rather than paying attention to the lessons to be learnt from the last 200 years or so of empire building.
        
        1 0
        
        Saturday 28th June 2014 10:26 GMT Matt Bryant
        
        Re: Roominat Re: Apdsmith AC Military Industrial Congressional Complex
        
        "The whole system was set up get the results that the US et al could live with...." What male bovine manure! Go read the BBC article I linked to, Bush expressly states the US has to accept the result of the democratic process even if it meant another Islamic republic. And then, if it was supposed to produce a result acceptable to the US, how did Maliki get into power? Mailiki has always been Iran's pawn and has previous history of working with Hezbollah in Lebanon, including in 1983 when Hezbollah blew up the Marines in Beirut. It's rather ironic that the Iraqi people of all faiths are now the victims of the type of suicide car-bombings Hezbollah perfected in Lebanon. Please do explain how he the 'choice' of the US?
        
        "....so on average Blackwater contractors were more lethal than Iraqis...." Apart from the fact that Blackwater was only introduced into the thread in a desperate attempt to evade from the actual point raised - that the Shia Iraqis are completely to blame for their current situation - it has zero relevance to the current position in Iraq seeing as Blackwater or any of their successors are not currently in Iraq. Bleating about Blackwater is completely irrelevant. They also left Iraq long before the Allies had ironed out the majority of sectarian violence, which Maliki has completely undone, so are also completely irrelevant on the 'building faith in the authorities' idea. Really desperate of you to try and insist the lack of trust between the sectarian groups in Iraq is all due to Blackwater, did they invent the Sunni-Shia schism?
        
        And then you rant on about 'empire building'? Please do point to the current Imperial force in Iraq? Trying to excuse the Iraqis own failings on 'colonialism' is just denial. Please do come back with something relevant next time. Complete, bleatingly stupid fail!
        
        0 5
        
        Sunday 29th June 2014 11:00 GMT Roo
        
        Re: Roominat Apdsmith AC Military Industrial Congressional Complex
        
        "Bush expressly states the US has to accept the result of the democratic process even if it meant another Islamic republic. "
        
        Bush said a lot of stuff that was blatantly untrue. His victory speech on the Aircraft carrier for instance. The endless WMD rants. The alleged mobile bioweapon/nerve gas truck that turned out to be for inflating weather balloons. After all that bollocks I struggle to believe that you are credulous enough to take that line seriously.
        
        Even a newborn lamb with scrapie could see through that bollocks, why can't you Matt ?
        
        "And then you rant on about 'empire building'? Please do point to the current Imperial force in Iraq?"
        
        Empire is about running countries, 'forces' don't run countries, on the other hand diplomats, civil servants etc do. It just so happens that the US established their largest diplomatic mission outside of New York in Iraq, and the oil contracts were handed out without proper open tender before the fighting had officially stopped. You might not call it Empire Building, but wiping out a country's entire administration and installing an apparatus of your own design is exactly what successive Empires have done.
        
        You are no better than a blind drunk PR hack Matt.
        
        1 1
        
        Sunday 29th June 2014 11:53 GMT Matt Bryant
        
        Re: Roominant Apdsmith AC Military Industrial Congressional Complex
        
        "Bush said a lot of stuff that was blatantly untrue...." If you want to claim that Bush was lying in the interview then please do post proof of orders he have that directly influenced to Iraqi elections to get an US-approved candidate elected in any of the elections. Or just admit you're talking out of your rectum. Proof you are is the election of Nouri Maliki, now trying for his third term.
        
        "....The endless WMD rants....." Go learn something the shepherds didn't want to tell you about - http://www.iraqwatch.org/wmd/index.html
        
        ".....Even a newborn lamb with scrapie could see through that bollocks, why can't you Matt ?...." Because I can read for myself. Interesting that a sheeple should reflexively use a lamb as an unintentional example of just how blinkered they are.
        
        "....Empire is about running countries, 'forces' don't run countries, on the other hand diplomats, civil servants etc do....." Which a long and evasive way of saying there is no Imperial force in Iraq. Your denials are amusingly childish.
        
        "..,,,It just so happens that the US established their largest diplomatic mission outside of New York in Iraq....." They certainly did, when they were rebuilding the Iraqi civil service and infrastructure, but that diplomatic contingent has long since left with the handover. Once again, another of your evasions and denials just turns out to be a load of male bovine manure.
        
        "..,,,and the oil contracts were handed out without proper open tender before the fighting had officially stopped...." About eight years ago when cash was needed to rebuild Iraq. Since the Iraqis have taken full control of their oil facilities and licensing (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Oil_(Iraq)). I see your problem is you have relied on the shepherds to spoonfed you information and haven't had the gumption to get up and try some research of your own. You are a classic sheeple.
        
        ".....You are no better than a blind drunk PR hack Matt." Independent thought and actually fact-checking what you are told is so verboten in the flock. Maybe you should try and aspire to one day lift yourself to the level of a blind drunk PR hack, it would be a serious improvement.
        
        0 2
        
        Sunday 29th June 2014 12:18 GMT Roo
        
        Re: Roominant Apdsmith AC Military Industrial Congressional Complex
        
        "They certainly did, when they were rebuilding the Iraqi civil service and infrastructure, but that diplomatic contingent has long since left with the handover."
        
        From the very first page at http://iraq.usembassy.gov
        
        "Embassy presence in Iraq will remain in place and the Embassy will be fully equipped to carry out its national security mission."
        
        Embassies do all kinds of stuff, but very few claim to be carrying out a "national security mission". It really doesn't what you say or choose to believe Matt, the facts on the ground remain the same.
        
        "Independent thought and actually fact-checking what you are told is so verboten in the flock"
        
        Those are two things that you consistently fail to achieve Matt.
        
        1 1
        
        Monday 30th June 2014 09:53 GMT Matt Bryant
        
        Re: Roominant Apdsmith AC Military Industrial Congressional Complex
        
        ".....and the Embassy will be fully equipped to carry out its national security mission.....Embassies do all kinds of stuff, but very few claim to be carrying out a "national security mission". It really doesn't what you say or choose to believe Matt, the facts on the ground remain the same....." So you have some facts from 'on the ground' that show the US mission is continued control of the oil (despite the existence of the Iraqi Oil Ministry) and their continued repression of the democratic process in Iraq (despite three rounds of national elections)? What, you don't? Seriously, I'm trying to look surprised, but it's really hard when I'm laughing at you this hard.
        
        Once again, just because you really want to baaaah-lieve something does not make it reality, it's just failure. Enjoy!
        
        0 1
        
        Monday 30th June 2014 12:54 GMT Roo
        
        Re: Roominant Apdsmith AC Military Industrial Congressional Complex
        
        I was responding your assertion that there were no forces in Iraq by pointing out that the biggest US diplomatic mission in the world states quite clearly that it is helping out with national security in Iraq, and this is your response...
        
        "So you have some facts from 'on the ground' that show the US mission is continued control of the oil (despite the existence of the Iraqi Oil Ministry) and their continued repression of the democratic process in Iraq (despite three rounds of national elections)?"
        
        Matt, it's not really a debate when you invent agruments for the opposition, it is called failing to engage in debate, or in your case because it's your default mode of operation : Living in Disneyland.
        
        "but it's really hard when I'm laughing at you this hard."
        
        As you fabricated both ends of the argument you are in fact laughing at yourself.
        
        1 1
        
        Monday 30th June 2014 13:15 GMT Matt Bryant
        
        Re: Roominant Apdsmith AC Military Industrial Congressional Complex
        
        "....the biggest US diplomatic mission in the world...." Packed it's bags and left. The current biggest US diplomatic mission is to the UN. Oh, and you also did not provide any evidence of how the US diplomatic mission in Iraq was forcing conclusions on the democratic process or controlling the sale of oil licences. So, despite all your evasions and bleating, you're still just failing. And, no matter what you want to baaaah-lieve, no evidence means you are the one making stuff up, and I am laughing at you. Enjoy!
        
        0 1
        
        Monday 30th June 2014 15:59 GMT Roo
        
        Re: Roominant Apdsmith AC Military Industrial Congressional Complex
        
        "Oh, and you also did not provide any evidence of how the US diplomatic mission in Iraq was forcing conclusions on the democratic process or controlling the sale of oil licences".
        
        My post concerned past tense, yet you persist with working the present tense. It looks like you struggle with differentiating between past, current and future events. This would go some way to explain why you consistently fail to comprehend basic posts and repeat the same mistakes, put-downs, tired old lines, catch-phrases and expletives over and over again.
        
        1 1
        
        Monday 30th June 2014 19:54 GMT Matt Bryant
        
        Re: Roominant Apdsmith AC Military Industrial Congressional Complex
        
        "....My post concerned past tense...." LOL, you really are getting desperate in your evasions! If you like, please show how the past US diplomatic mission 'interfered' to put a US-approved candidate' in power in the two national elections Nouri Maliki, probably only second to Muqtada al-Sadr as the least 'US-approved candidate', has already won? Go on, just for the comedy value. Or why not just admit you're talking out of your rectum.
        
        0 2
        
        Tuesday 1st July 2014 18:30 GMT Bernard M. Orwell
        
        Re: Roominant Apdsmith AC Military Industrial Congressional Complex
        
        Iraqwatch is one site of several maintained by Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms control, a not-for-profit NGO.
        
        The Wisconsin Project receives financing through grants from the U.S. government and from several private foundations, the identities of which are undisclosed.
        
        Draw your own conclusions.
        
        1 0
        
        Wednesday 2nd July 2014 11:27 GMT Matt Bryant
        
        Re: Boring Bernie Re: Roominant Apdsmith AC Military Industrial Congressional Complex
        
        ".....Draw your own conclusions." My conclusion is your are much more focused on trying to discredit the site in question rather than dealing with the information it supplies. Gee, I wonder why that would be?
        
        0 0
        
        Wednesday 2nd July 2014 11:48 GMT Bernard M. Orwell
        
        Re: Boring Bernie Roominant Apdsmith AC Military Industrial Congressional Complex
        
        Which, of course, you never do.
        
        0 1
        
        Wednesday 2nd July 2014 12:00 GMT Matt Bryant
        
        Re: Boring Bernie Roominant Apdsmith AC Military Industrial Congressional Complex
        
        "Which, of course, you never do." Whether I do or not, in this case it is you that seems unable to counter the info provided by Iraqwatch.
        
        0 0
        
        Monday 7th July 2014 14:10 GMT Bernard M. Orwell
        
        Re: Boring Bernie Roominant Apdsmith AC Military Industrial Congressional Complex
        
        I believe I am free to use the same argumentative methods as you, Mr By Rant. Go away and bleat elsewhere please.
        
        1 1
        
        Tuesday 8th July 2014 17:55 GMT Matt Bryant
        
        Re: Boring Bernie Roominant Apdsmith AC Military Industrial Congressional Complex
        
        So, still unable to argue the points I raised - what a surprise! Not.
        
        Indeed, the whole affair seems to be a mix of witch-hunt and score-settling, as there appears to be SFA evidence of any wrong-doing. And that is the amusing bit - it is very unlikely any company that has stumped up the fee will want to admit either (a) they got conned and Alexander sold them a load of soap, or (b) that Alexander gave them some great security knowledge that has helped them but they will not want to give their competition for free. If they insist on putting Alexander on the stand how are they going to make him admit to any selling of State secrets without the proof of such secrets being used by his customers unwilling to admit (a) or (b)? Just bleating 'he knew secrets, therefore he must have sold them' is just too childish for words.
        
        0 1
Friday 27th June 2014 06:30 GMT Anonymous Blowhard

Failed occupation of Iraq?

I think that the shareholders of Haliburton and the PMCs probably think that this was a complete success.

If you create a cure for a disease, then the patient buys it once; if you create a "treatment" then they pay for the rest of their lives. Long running fuck-ups are good for (someone's) business.

8 1
Friday 27th June 2014 06:36 GMT Schultz

Big money

With the US spending billions on Homeland security, it's not hard to see the value of a good insider consultant. Want to get in on the gravy train? Here is your ticket (first class only!).

7 1
Friday 27th June 2014 08:26 GMT Chris G

Ready for Democracy

Most of the world is ready for democracy, the problem is finding the stuff.

Currently there is not one true democracy that I know of on the planet. There are many countries that hold elections to appoint leaders and governments who then go on to abuse their apparently approved mandates from the electorate, lobbying has more impact on government policies than voting.

10 1
Friday 27th June 2014 09:39 GMT FrankAlphaXII

Alan Grayson has no credibility in regard to civil rights

I didn't even make it past the first line. I'll finish it but this article needs a disclaimer about Alan Grayson's past behavior in trying to censor things he didn't like on the Internet.

Alan Grayson is an ass. He's also my congressman. He's the Democratic answer to Ted Cruz, the other dumbass who got the Government shut down last year. Y'know the guy who apparently has a thing for Dr. Seuss since he read Green Eggs and Ham on the Congressional Record.

I'll admit I voted for Grayson, and I did because he's full of shit. He has done some legally questionable things, and seems pretty fucked up all around, but he's up front about it while the other guy tried seeming squeaky clean, like Mr. All American Ronald Reagan Pro-Life Anti-Gay Thinly Veiled Racist Republican and as a result looked like he had something to hide and only appealed to white, middle aged, upper and middle class voters who usually also have something to hide. We also had an independent conservative not associated with the Republicans or the Tea Party from the Business community who ran for the same seat that I actually like quite a bit but unfortunately doesn't stand a chance with the way Florida's game works at both the State and Federal level.

Anyway this guy Grayson tried to use the fucking Sedition Act to get a woman's domain seized and her publication of flyers promoting her website and shitty podcast that noone cares about (besides Alan Grayson obviously) banned. The domain was mycongressmanisnuts.com, and I think he did manage to get it taken down eventually, so any concern he publicly displays about General Alexander's business ventures encroaching on people's rights (which is a well founded concern, despite the source of the concern) needs to be tempered with the knowledge of his very dim outlook on freedom of speech that may not be complimentary towards himself.

I don't know British politics that well, but imagine if instead of London Mayor if Boris Johnson were an MP given quite a bit more power and time in the media than he has experience or expertise for, but with more paranoia, much more sycophancy toward the Prime Minister (like Grayson acts toward the President), and a shorter temper.

4 0
1. Friday 27th June 2014 11:24 GMT Tom 38
  
  Re: Alan Grayson has no credibility in regard to civil rights
  
  I don't know British politics that well, but imagine if instead of London Mayor if Boris Johnson were an MP given quite a bit more power and time in the media than he has experience or expertise for, but with more paranoia, much more sycophancy toward the Prime Minister (like Grayson acts toward the President), and a shorter temper.
  
  Yep, wrong example - Boris is a rival to the PM, he doesn't go after him directly, his allies regularly send out stalking horses to try to discredit Gove/May/Grieve to strengthen Boris in the party and weaken Cameron.
  
  I think the best analogy would be to Michael Gove - deeply ambitious and sycophantic, will do anything his master wants.
  
  1 1
  1. Saturday 28th June 2014 05:25 GMT Anonymous Coward
    
    Re: Alan Grayson has no credibility in regard to civil rights
    
    In the US, on the R side of the aisle, it usually comes down to a choice between a flake and a hack. On the D side of the aisle, you have a choice between a flake and a demogogue. Not much difference, really. If any of them had any decency, they'd go jump in a lake.
    
    Anyway, "Caveman Congressman" is a bona fide flake, with a flair for demogoguery (referred to in DC-speak as pandering). He'll go far. Unfortunately, just not far enough.
    
    1 0
Friday 27th June 2014 12:19 GMT Graham Marsden

"so that Congress can verify if classified information has been leaked"

Which is, of course, *their* job...

2 2
Saturday 28th June 2014 08:51 GMT silent_count

As a former lawyer, Mr Grayson should be aware that the correct thing to do with evidence of illegal activity is to present it to the police. As he doesn't have any such evidence, what he's doing is using his position as an elected official to organise a witch hunt. And that's just low.

1 1
1. Saturday 28th June 2014 19:57 GMT Gannon (J.) Dick
  
  @silent_count
  
  Mr Grayson did "the correct thing". He turned the evidence over to Occam's Razor.
  
  "Occam's razor (also written as Ockham's razor and in Latin lex parsimoniae) is a principle of parsimony, economy, or succinctness used in problem-solving devised by William of Ockham (c. 1287–1347). It states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected."
  
  BTW, Google Translate gets "lex parsimoniae" right - The Law of Parsimony.
  
  Simply put, the burden of proof is on General Alexander to prove The Law of Parsimony wrong.
  
  0 0
  1. Monday 30th June 2014 21:18 GMT Tom 38
    
    Re: @silent_count
    
    Thanks, I thought it was named after that episode of House.
    
    0 0